User talk:Jclemens

Welcome, correspondents I occasionally do recent changes patrolling. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. No edit summary, especially for a removal. I can't read your mind. If you removed content that was a copyvio or an ad, you can either tell everyone by including an accurate edit summary, or not. If you don't, you stand a higher chance of getting reverted, because I have yet to meet any other recent changes patroller who can read minds, either.
2. No sourcing, especially for a controversial change. I don't normally revert non-outlandish changes unless I have personal knowledge that the original was more reasonable, but if you are going to make a change to a biography, the burden is on you to source it, especially if you want to assert that the existing article was radically incorrect with regard to any protected class.

If you include a good source and a good edit summary, odds of me reverting you are quite small indeed. If you still have questions about why I made a particular reversion, don't hesitate to start a new topic at the bottom of the page and ask why: I am always willing to explain my reasoning.

Since becoming an administrator, I often delete articles. If you want to know why your article was speedily deleted, please look at WP:CSD for starters. If I deleted your article per WP:PROD, all you need to do to have it restored is to ask on this talk page. My take on WP:N in a nutshell: Wikipedia is a place to catalog notable things, not a directory of non-notable things that are looking for greater Internet exposure.

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

St. Pancake

I'm sorry, but I believe that you're wrong on this matter. The statement in your edit summary "redirects do not have to follow NPOV policy" is quite false. You may not be aware that similar redirect St. Pancake was tagged as a G10 by experienced user Cerejota and deleted by admin Jac16888 earlier this month. I am going to seek wider input. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my post here. Mike R (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Steven Kirk

 Done

Hello, I was quite surprised to see the page for Steven Kirk deleted, especially since he has gotten a bit of notoriety lately with his impression of a certain disgraced governor. When I found your statement, "notable things, not a directory of non-notable things that are looking for greater Internet exposure," I can see your point. But I would argue, and humbly suggest, that Mr. Kirk's contributions at large don't rise or fall on a flurry of recent promotion. Besides, cobbling that information together took a bit of time and recreating it from scratch would be laborious. I respect your opinion and indeed do see Wikipedia the way you do. So, if you could please advise on how to have the page restored without any violations, I would appreciate it. It would be no problem to de-emphasize and remove links to the aforementioned politician, if that was the sticking point. Thanks! Snd33083 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

I can userify it for you. If you can find a good, independent reliable source that covers him in these activities, it would be fine to go back into mainspace. A local paper "entertainment" section would be a good start. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can do that for me, that would be great! Thanks. Snd33083 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

OK, page is restored and moved to User:Snd33083/Steven Kirk. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snd33083 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint Pancake

I'm sorry, but my deletion has every support in policy. WP:CSD#G10 is quite clear - "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity". Since the only purpose of that page is to insert a disparaging nickname of the subject into Wikipedia - as you admitted yourself [1] - the applicability of G10 is clear. Black Kite 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it must be the only and sole reason it exists in Wikipedia. Since it's a useful redirect from a name well known to Google, your argument is incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides WP:CSD is very clear: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I'm not suggesting it be kept outright, I'm stating that it should be reviewed and decided by a full WP:RfD instead of a speedy fiat. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the nickname only exists to disparage Corrie, then it follows that the page only exists to do the same. On that basis we could have redirects of any pejorative nicknames pointing to that person's article - Monkey boy could redirect to GW Bush, for example ... Black Kite 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment on WP:REDIRECT's endorsement of Butcher of Kurdistan in light of your position? Does that name not also serve to disparage its (living) target? Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that it does, but I would point out that this particular name has been widely used in reliable sources (i.e. [2]). Similarly Butcher of Lyon redirects to Klaus Barbie. "Saint Pancake", by comparison, returns no hits at all in the entire archive of Google News. Black Kite 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but Google News is an inappropriate metric to use, since WP:RS is only about articles, not about redirects. See, we're beyond the point in this discussion where it's clear that reasonable people differ and the speedy should be reversed and referred to a full RfD. I just went through the usage statistics--looks like about a dozen people a month used either redirect in 2008, so they clearly serve a redirection purpose--people searching using the terms, since no place linked to either page--in addition to the freely acknowledged inclusion of the disparaging nickname. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my argument there would be that a reference to "Saint Pancake" in the Corrie article would be disallowed for lack of WP:RS (whereas both the examples above are discussed in their articles and reliable sources exist) and therefore a redirect should be inappropriate anyway. I've no real objection to a discussion on this, but I do think that, as a G10 deletion, if one takes place it should be at WP:DRV so that it stays deleted for the time being. I won't be back online until tomorrow now (it's 1.15am here). Thanks, Black Kite 01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The world's not going to end over this, by all means sleep and come back to the conversation refreshed--I will be in an all-day class myself. I'd really rather convince you to take it to RfD than "win" a DRV. Fact is, I've never tried to put the term into the article, (though others have) and I agree it's somewhat more reasonable to exclude it. The difference with a redirect is that no one will find it and be offended (the "think of her friends" argument... as if anyone who is closely associated with Corrie isn't already familiar with the term and more less polite things that have been said about her, but I digress...) and redirects just need an assertion of utility, not reliable sourcing. Regardless, it's pretty well acknowledged by all that the term comes from the right-wing blogosphere, and probably originated at the LittleGreenFootballs site: it's a real term, hence a dozen people a month coming here to find out who Saint Pancake is and becoming enlightened through the presence of the redirect. Frankly, the fact that it has this much use four years after the fact demonstrates, in my mind, a pretty good argument that the redirect is encyclopedic, even if many of the blog hits have long since vanished from Google. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've been back to this DRV, but you might have missed my question of 10:30 today. You might drop back when you've a chance to address it. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I do think I substantially answered it before, but I'll get a little bit more specific. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: closing admin supported the view that the correct way to handle CSD deletions is WP:DRV. In your closing statement, you noted "for the record" that those supporting deletion did it wrong. It would seem to me that community consensus is otherwise, that your recreation was wrong and that the second deletion was correct. I know this was in good faith, but perhaps in the future if a fellow admin deletes somethign you feel should not be deleted, you will go to DRV before reverting him/her. I want to note for the record that CSD exists for a reason, and that unilaterally second guessing (instead of using the further steps in the deletion process) a deleting admin is indeed pulling wheelies.--Cerejota (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying it again doesn't make it right. A bunch of people saying it doesn't make it right. A closing admin agreeing with a bunch of people who are wrong doesn't make it right. If you think WP:DELETE or WP:Wheel war should be changed, feel free to take it up on those talk pages. Let me put it this way: If I were to push it, I could ask for Black Kite to be desysop'ed, and there's a non-trivial chance that he would be, per WP:Wheel war. More likely, he'd just be admonished, since the sentiment is that that outcome was "right", WP:NOTCENSORED notwithstanding. You, and most of the other people involved in the process, focused on personal dislike of the redirect, rather than the egregious violations of process. It is simply not possible to assert in good faith that I did anything wrong, but that Black Kite was justified in re-deleting Saint Pancake. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't mind if this never-been-blocked admin in good standing doesn't take advice on interpreting WP:Wheel war too seriously when it comes from an editor who was blocked barely more than two weeks ago for edit warring. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OUCH! You might note it was quickly reversed, and it was the first time after many years and many controversies, including the Wikipedia Review saying I was a sock for SlimVirgin. So I am generally well-behaved and in good standing. That said, I am heeding your advice and raising an RfC for making this explicit in CSD: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Reverting_speedy_deletions_-_administrator.27s_guide. I think this is a discussion worth having, and made policy either way, so we do not have to throw barbs at each other ;)--Cerejota (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Cerejota's statement represents correctly what i tried to say in the closing statement. In particular i did not want to comment or imply that either of you was 'wrong'. For more, I refer to above mentioned RfC. But you seem to dismiss my DRV closure as someone "agreeing with a bunch of people who are wrong". Well your fellow editors, certainly didn't expect a lengthy reading of the discussion, so if you cannot take anything out of it for you, I've probably failed. -Tikiwont (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Tikiwont, I'm sorry if that seemed like a slam on your close. I was more responding to Cerejota's failure to leave the issue well enough alone, rather than trying to bring it up for discussion. I don't particularly agree with your close, but nor do I bear you any ill will. I would love to separate the process issues from the visceral, negative emotional reactions people have to documenting the use of Saint Pancake by those who found Corrie's actions unadmirable. I've been speaking up for a minority view, and been roundly shouted down by those who have a vested emotional interest in the other outcome, and generally ignored by those who might have spoken up for minority rights or the fundamental right to discuss a controversial deleiton before it is permanently effected--the worse I can say about your close is that it tends to follow the latter course. DGG's about the only one who seemed to "get" what I was trying to say: that any contested speedy should be discussed on its merits, not simply deleted and then actions justified ex post facto. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while that might be true for others, it is not for me. I actually get what you where saying, and see it as a valid argument - my response was that DRV was an appropriate forum for such discussion on its merits, and that furthermore, in that discussion, the CSD G10 criteria for "attack" was met.

for example, I went to LGF (a great source of anti-creationist news) and searched both "St. Pancake" and "Saint Pancake", and all I got was a post form 2005 claiming the term was possibly invented in LGF, and a couple of "hat tips" to a "St. Pancake". If even in alleged source of the term it is not used in their articles, then this is clearly not a notable attack with encyclopedic value. It is blog rumor and forwarded jokes, the very definition of an attack.

And less than one person every two days looking for it (and how we know these are uniques and not spiders or forkers?) certainly fails the useful test.

In other words, while you might disagree with the removal of the term, I think you are mistaken in thinking that the response is a vested emotional response. As I said, Spic is much worse offense-wise to me than the dark humor (yes I laff at it) of "St. Pancake". Yet you don't see me trying to get "Spic" deleted. If I acted only on vested emotions, why would I not do that? You see? I think you are right raising the argument, and in arguing for your position, but you are wrong in characterizing the opposing positions both as homogenous, and as emotional versus a rational response. I think it is more of a rational vs rational response, with a few exceptions.--Cerejota (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no offense taken. I don't expect you to agree with the outcome but see little scope for a different one. Moreover, i agree that there is a difference between discussing before hand and ex post, just not that only the former addresses merits and the latter would amount to mere justification. Best regards, Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Me

{{adminhelp}}

Hello. I'd like to request the assistance of an administrator to assist me in resolving an issue. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

If you want to use {{adminhelp}} for this, please state your issue and request when placing the tag. So if you need assistance, please explain your request here, then use adminhelp again. Regards SoWhy 09:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am having a dispute with another editor. This editor keeps deleting/reverting all of my legitimate edits ... for what I see as no reason ... (with which I assume they disagree). I have attempted to communicate with this editor, to no avail. Please help with some administrative intervention. Or should I just keep un-reverting all of their reverts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

No, you shouldn't, that would constitute edit-warring. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution where you find many ways to resolve such disputes. Unless one of you starts disrupting the Wikipedia with those edits, administrative intervention is not needed because admins are not mediators but ordinary users in such cases (until the need for tool use arises). Regards SoWhy 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK ... just so I understand ... (1) that editor's revert of my edit remains in place, otherwise I am edit-warring ... is that correct? ... and (2) this, despite the fact that I have tried to resolve the dispute with him, to no avail, and with him ignoring my attempts? ... So, do I have this all straight? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Yep. Two wrongs don't make a right, and except in rare cases (such as defamatory material about living people), back-and-forth reverting is more disruptive than simply allowing one (presumably incorrect) piece stand while you seek dispute resolution. WP:3RR is an excellent page to read on that, and WP:3O is a good first dispute resolution process if no other editors are looking at the articles where the disputes are. If that doesn't help, feel free to contact me directly on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me? Please? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

OK, so back up and let's take this from the top.

1. What article are you editing?
2. What change are you trying to make?
3. Who is reverting you and what is the reason they give?

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and for your willingness to help out. Before I answer your questions, let me add some preface and some context. This article in question has very little "traffic" ... the edit in question (in my mind) has absolutely no controverted statements whatsoever ... and I have attempted to reach out to the editor to resolve this, but to no avail. The article is Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. If you review the history of edits to that article, I am referring to the 5 or 6 or so that have occurred on/after February 1st. Furthermore, please see the following ... in which I attempted to resolve this with the editor at his/her Talk Page: User talk:Emerson7#jerry lewis. Thank you. I would appreciate your help. Honestly, I don't see what the controversy or the issue is. And, in good faith, I attempted to resolve this dispute --- only to be ignored and reverted. Please offer your insights. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not seeing the either the article or user name here. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was in mid-edit, and adding that material, when you sent the above post. Also, this very moment, I see that another editor altogether has now edited the article in question. Please refer to my edits, not the latest/newest. Mine were sourced and gave exact / specific wording. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I just redid your edit, better. Some points:

• Calling other people anal isn't helpful. See WP:CIVILITY--being polite can often mean the difference between being listened to by admins or being ignored. It should be about the merits of your problem, but people don't like to help jerks--don't be one, even when others are, and you'll be more successful.
• The award for 2008 is awarded in 2009, so your edit was incorrect on that score.
• I've formatted the references better.

Hope that helps. I'll keep an eye on the article. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to me to apply to this case, so I support your addition of the sourced material, even if the award ceremony hasn't been held yet. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your assistance. One last note --- my original award "year" was indeed correct. On this particular Academy Award page, all of the years are "off" by one. In other words, AMPAS convention for this particular award (I guess) is to use the year of presentation, not the previous year (for body of work). If you want to keep your "year" for Jerry Lewis, then all of the other years need to be edited, as they will all be "one off". Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

So, do you have sourcing that establishes that? I'm certainly no expert, but that means either there was no award for 2008, we don't have it documented, or everything else in the entire article is off by one. Which? Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your question or what it is that you are asking a source for. So, I will tell you what I know. Apparently, there was no award for 2008 ... and, as you can see from glancing through the article, there were indeed many years in which no award was given. In fact, the award is more often not given than it is given. In all of the other Academy Awards, the year of presentation is always one year later than the year of the award. Thus, the Best Actor Oscar for 2008 will be handed out in 2009. That is, the winner in 2009 is being honored for his film work from 2008. The awards ceremony that is held in 2009 celebrates the film-work for 2008. However, with this particular award, that is not the case. In this instance, Jerry Lewis is not being honored for the work he did in 2008. Rather, he is being honored for his lifetime of work. So, from what I can see in this article (as I compare it with the Academy Awards database), this article lists the year of the award as the year in which it is actually presented. Hence, for Jerry Lewis, 2009. As I said, I did not quite understand your question ... so this (above) is my attempt to answer it, as best I could, by providing whatever information I know on this topic. Now, let me ask you a question ... what makes you think / state / claim that Jerry Lewis' award should be listed as 2008 and not 2009? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Just the general pattern of awards for X year being awarded in X+1. If this one's different, then go ahead and change it back. Just be prepared to document why this honorary award is different than others. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will change the year back to 2009 for Jerry Lewis. That follows the convention/format of all other entries on the page. Thanks for your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Question about Jess H. Dickinson

The article you deleted was tagged as copyvio by a bot and CSD'ed almost immediately. Do you know what the policy is on usage of material created by US state governments (specifically Missouri in this case) vs works by the federal government (which are public domain). Just curious, thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I honestly don't know. Regardless, if you'd like to paraphrase (and credit) the .ms.us page and upload it again, it shouldn't raise any flags. That sound reasonable? Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well no, if it's not clear that it would be a copyvio to begin with. I honestly cannot find anything on WP or elsewhere about this. You would think someone would have run into this at some point in the past, no? §FreeRangeFrog 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything on first glance, either. I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and seeing what they say. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. By the way, I tagged Muscatel Middle School for speedy because it was nonsense about the band, not the school. §FreeRangeFrog 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I went ahead and redirected it. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blank

Which page did I do that to? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A few of them... I don't remember the exact names, but there were more than two. Some were "/comments" subpages. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I found all two of them and fixed that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm wasting your time. I was trying to move to comments back into the talk page as I know of few Wikipedians who actively search for the comment pages. On the talk pages, at least people will see them and possibly fix what might be suggested. I'm not just blanking pages for the sake of deletion. I am trying to make the pages better, not waste ones time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving comments is fine, but I'm not sure how useful it is, since it looked like some of those pages were transcluded onto the parent pages--when you marked one for speedy, both the comment page and its parent page showed up for deletion. The purpose of {{db-empty}} is limited to the sole author's decision to wipe out a self-created page. Other people don't get to use it, nor does the creator of a page if other people have made significant contributions. What I'd do in that case is either Prod them, or bundle them up in one large MfD. Either way, it gives people time to comment on you requesting deletion of someone else's work. I think the goal is fundamentally good, but the speedy process is a set of specific shortcuts only available in limited, defined, community-agreed circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of millhouse

Hi disapoointed you deleted my millhouse page. They are a good band rather well liked in this locale if only for the way they change light pop tunes into good rock fare. Their significance may not extend much beyond cheshire but it is nevertheless notable in these parts. Was there anything missing or can be changed that might make the page re listable?

many thanks

Danny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millhousegibson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Danny, the primary issue is notability--the article didn't seem to assert that Millhouse were anything special. There is a minimum threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. In the case of musical acts, the community's expectation of minimum notability is recorded as WP:BAND. Feel free to examine that closely, and if you decide to recreate the article, be very clear how Millhouse meets one or more of those criteria. Deletion of articles that don't even make a case that their subjects meet such notability guidelines isn't punitive, just a shortcut. If you can make a better article about Millhouse, or any other musical act, feel free to do so. Per my quote above, though, Wikipedia is to describe acts that have already achieved recognition, not a place to catalogue acts seeking recognition--if Millhouse falls into the latter category, it might be best to avoid recreating their article until they get some publicity in independent sources. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Weddings in stockholm

Thanks for the CSD. RC patrol is made more satisfying when things happen. As I said, you are a good admin. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cervicography

Created again. I ran into it on WP:NEW but I guess it had not been tagged by Coren or something, and then I saw you nuked it previously. So I re-tagged it. Might want to block the user for a little while. I keep giving you headaches, sorry! :) §FreeRangeFrog 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version doesn't look like an explicit copyvio--it appears a good faith effort has been made to paraphrase that source. Jclemens (talk)

Banjo-Kazooie DS

I don't mean to question your judgment, but BKDS is not a rumor at all or crystal ball, it's a nonexistent hoax, that even the article says doesn't exist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think I've seen it before. If it gets De-prodded, we can take it to AfD, and then delete it on sight in the future as G4. There's less harm in telling lies about future video games than about real people, but if it gets too stupid, you can take it straight to AfD without waiting for Prod, and I'll endorse deletion. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's an okay proposal. Speaking of prods, Metroid Subzero is now a dated prod. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, it's got a day left. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Jclemens. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon. Redddogg (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bruce Roselle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bruce Roselle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Roselle. Thank you. andy (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The American Friends of Versailles

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The American Friends of Versailles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable group, no Google news hits

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jess H. Dickinson

Hello. As you deleted the article, I wanted to follow-up with you, explaining why I'm going to recreate an altered version. After getting to my Talkpage, please continue on to Darth Mike's to read an explanation of what happened and why. Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that creating a non-copyvio version of this article is absolutely an appropriate thing to do. Did you ever get a straight answer from anyone on whether U.S. State-created info was automagically in the public domain? Jclemens (talk)

Stranger Originated Life Insurance

Hi -- I haven't looked at that article lately, but this is a real topic. Maybe someone spamified it with copyrighted material since I worked on it, but I can't tell now. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It'd been a copyvio for a while, but yes, your original stub was perfectly fine, and has been restored--sorry for not noticing that before. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll throw it on my watchlist in case this recurs. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aeorads

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aeorads, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeorads. Thank you. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hai Ha Confectionery

Hi, I don't suppose you could un-delete Hai Ha Confectionery; I am not with the company, I write government and corporate articles and do a lot of geographic categorization for Southeast Asia and Africa. If it is impossible to un-delete the article, I will simply put Hai Ha on a deletion discussion page and re-write it. Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can userify it for you if you'd like, but there's no particular assertion of notability. The article fails to answer the question: Why would anyone outside the local area care about this business? Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could "userify" it; having experience in defending corporate articles, corporate notability, in line with WP:CORP, has to do with listing at a major stock exchange, which can provide most of a company's notability; and listing at established financial research sites like Hoover's; Hoover's is mentioned by name in corporation notability guidelines, but Google and Bloomberg cater more to international corporate research. The corporate notability guidelines say "inclusion on a stock exchange does not in and of itself establish notability"; this guideline is partly designed to protect against (CSD candidate) articles written about companies on the very many un-official stock exchanges that exist around the world. ...By my experience (see Sara Vietnam and Phnom Penh Commercial Bank deletion discussions) his company passes notability easily....article was deleted less than 5 minutes after creation. Please, if you have any questions please continue this discussion here. Thanks again. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's restored to User:Mr_Accountable/Hai_Ha_Confectionery. Feel free to work on it there. As you can see, the amount of attention paid to new articles is highly variable, depending on how many editors happen to be watching, so I'd recommend making it notable beyond a reasonable doubt before moving it back to mainspace. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and: Um, that's the thing, it is notable beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment depends on the level of corporate Wikipedia experience of the editor or adminsitrator, I suppose. I will put it up tomorrow during the day here and see how it goes. Cheers. PS Hanoimilk and Hoa Cam Concrete, also created just now, are also similarly "notable beyond a reasonable doubt", I wonder if they are safe? --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No... If it doesn't have reliable sources, nor explain its own importance, it's not obviously notable. If I ask "If everything in this article were sourced and true, would anyone not directly involved care?" Simply noting that a company is listed on a stock exchange doesn't cut it. As far as the other two, I really couldn't tell you--I don't tag many things, generally I just evaluate what someone else has tagged. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When a company article like the ones here get to a deletion discussion, there is normally some confusion about WP:CORP and WP:N, because of high levels of spammy articles, non-wikified articles copied wholesale by pr departments, and of course articles about companies which aren't notable to begin with. Listing on a stock exchange can go very far towards notability, but it actually depends on the stock exchange itself. Kuwait Stock Exchange has a mix of many very notable companies and many very non-notable companies but Vietnam's two stock exchanges are more or less full of notable companies, due again to the nature of the stock exchange itself. The point being made about "Why would someone outside the local area care" goes toward a Wikireader who is interested in corporations in the first place, just consider the 250 companies on London's FTSE 250, each of course with an article, most all which would mean nothing to a casual reader in the US or Canada. This goes to the difference between a casual reader and a more corporately knowldegeable reader who might be able to understand the accountability of the financial services industry in regards to company research at company sites and at Google finance, Alacrastore, Hoover's, Bloomberg, etc. For a "corporate type", a Google listing can mean as much as an ICAO listing in aviation or a molecule listing at IUPAC. .... Hope this is information is useful and interesting. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

David Bredehoft

I saw you declined speedy, but I am surprised - this thing looks like a c.v. you would submit with a job application. – ukexpat (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with such an interpretation is that if we take out the CV stuff, it doesn't obviously pass WP:ACADEMIC, does it? If there's no contact information to hire him, I'm OK with it not being a G11. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Being Stalked

Hi. Remember Baseball2 (IRC Channel)? It appears the flood of users behind that are now taking an active role stalking me. Send me an email for more details please. Knippschild (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just dealing with me directly, I suggest you go ahead and post at WP:AN/I so that multiple folks can help. I'm pretty busy during the day. Hope things work out well, Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently the same IP address that created that page defaced my page after I deleted it, too. I blocked it for a couple of days--we'll see if they get bored and go away. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Luminet

Wow that was a very speedy deletion! I had just read the notice and begun responding when the Luminet page was deleted. I guess Wikipedia is not the place for information on a band which is attempting to create new musical forms? What additional information would I have required (if I had had time to add it) to avoid deletion? Thanks you! Rgonzale1 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For musicians/acts/bands, see WP:MUSICBIO, and make sure your article clearly articulates how it meets one or more of those criteria for inclusion. Nothing personal, Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere. If any coverage of the band exists, even in local free weeklies, be sure to reference that. If that act doesn't yet meet those criteria, feel free to come back and create an article once it does. Wikipedia is for cataloging things (including bands) who are already notable, not for "getting the word out" about not-yet-notable things. Best wishes, Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Jclemens. My first article and clearly I'm a noob! Thanks for your work. Rgonzale1 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ג'ין לרמן

re [3], did you know that the translate tag includes a link to a google machine translation?, which is coherent enough to know it fits a7--Jac16888^Talk 17:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. No, I didn't, thanks. Unfortunately, that link doesn't work for me for this page. Looks like it's only got a few hours before it's Prod eligible anyways, but I'll keep that in mind for future reference. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of R Rated Movies

Why did you decline speedy? WP:Films DOES NOT accept films by ratings they don't comply with guidlines andaccording to our MOS guidelines. They are not even appropriate within articles. Please delete it thankyou. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's already been deleted once, can you reference the discussion for me so that I can G4 delete it? Failing that, I don't see what speedy criteria apply. I agree it's not a good list, and if you AfD it I'll !vote to delete it, but I simply don't see a speedy criteria that obviously applies. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see [4]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Deleted and blocked him. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello. I tried to create a page for control4. It was deleted so i deleted the marketing type stuff from the page leaving just facts about the company and posted it again but now its blocked and i was given a warning. I dont understand why the creation of the control4 page was blocked. It provides models and information to consumers on the products. it is not promoting the sale of them. I tried to make the page have information like this page [[5]] i dont understand what the difference is. I am new here and have read as much as possible but need help. Please tell me what i did wrong and what i can do to fix this and get the control4 listing actvice.. Thank you Blackwiredesigns (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Kevin Blackwiredesigns

Sorry I missed this--it was added to the top, vs the bottom, of the talk page. Are you still needing help? Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vito "Tha Champ"

Sir, I just joined tonight (Feb. 11, 2009)...I am not sure why the Vito "Tha Champ" page was deleted. To the best of my ability I made a neutral statement on this guy's career, and as far as copyright infringement, I credited the creators of the pictures (if that's what was in question) wholeheartedly. Granted, a profile of an upcoming rapper may not be scholarly, but his career has just started as far I know (therefore most of the citations I could use were from his handlers' web sites). He's an artist that I respect, and I gained permission from him to build a Wikipedia page for him. I thoroughly enjoy Wikipedia and being this is my first night as a user, I spent THREE hours creating that page. Any feedback would be great...Thanks for hearing me out.

Kor3y Hu5H, CEO of Hu5H Mon3y M3dia 04:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kor3yHu5H (talk • contribs)

First off, thanks for being polite about it. I realize that investing that amount of time, only to have the article deleted, is frustrating. Beyond that, there are two separate issues with the article as it was before it was deleted. The first problem is the copyright issue, which is fairly simple to fix. See WP:IOWN for the steps. Basically, Wikipedia can't trust a bare assertion that an anonymous account owns content, so needs a more specific assurance that yes, you have the right to grant Wikipedia the right to use and republish your info.

The second issue is notability. WP:MUSICBIO covers rappers (as well as other sorts of performing artists). If I recall correctly, the article was marginal on this point--had it not been for the copyright issue, I probably wouldn't have deleted it solely based on the issues here. When you recreate the article, be sure to clearly indicate, ideally in the first paragraph (the "lead"), how Vito meets at least one of those criteria. Also, if he's received any press coverage (MySpace, his own website, and press releases don't count), be sure to include that. Notability via WP:MUSICBIO is the bright line we use to determine who's notable enough to get an article, and who isn't. Wikipedia is for things that have already achieved a measure of recognition, rather than things that are seeking publicity in order to achieve wider recognition. If Vito doesn't yet meet those criteria, feel free to create an article on him once he does. Another bit of advice: feel free to create copies of articles in your own user space (e.g., User:Kor3yHu5H/Vito "the champ") and then make a copy of them into mainspace. That way, if an admin doesn't think the article meets inclusion criteria, you can work on your copy of the article without having to recreate it from scratch.

Hope that helps. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you could give me some help...

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I have some (two) questions. First, what usergroups does this wiki have? If you could give me a list of those, I would really appreciate it. Second, how would I go about obtaining rollback privilidges? This place seems to have a lot of vandalism going on, and the easiest way to deal with it is with rollback. I want to help, but I'm not fast enough 90% of the time. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope to be of service to this wiki in the future. --VaderRacer 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, here goes. First, user groups. Most associations of users are based around "Wikiprojects"--Click on my userboxes, you'll see a few of them. There are scores of wikiprojects, and sub-teams (task forces) within most of the major ones. They're a great place to hang out with people who share similar interests. Second, rollback. Basic criteria for rollback are to be around for a while, do a fair bit of reverting vandalism, and do it well. Read WP:VAND to see what's vandalism and what's not--many people call mistaken or misguided edits vandalism, when it's actually excluded. Read and understand WP:CSD to understand what is and is not suitable for "speedy deletion". Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Youstinklmao

Please Jclemens do not extend that block, I of all people understands how it feels to be blocked and you think or are in the right. Anger can sometimes cloud ones judgement. If you were blocked for no apparent reason you would be angry. This user was angry enough to personally attack someone. Perhaps extending it would make him/her more angry. I ask as a person of concern. P.S. OMFG- I fricken love you user talk, esp.the goals--there all the stuff i lyk 2Dance-pop (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Go look at the edit that got him blocked, look at his unblock request again, and then let's talk about what his attitude is and how appropriate the original block was. Thanks for the kudos, btw. :-) Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Virgil Preda

Hi.

I saw you declined my speedy delete on Virgil Preda. I'm having a hell of a time figuring out just where the line is on notability. I've just started nominating things for speedy deletion, this is not the first one to be declined. I checked the guideline, and I can't figure out which one applies to this article. I see the section for artists under "Creative professionals," but none of the criteria seem to apply.

Can you help me figure out what I'm missing?

Thanks.

—Bdb484 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to explain. A7 is for when all the assertions in the article, even if true and supported by reliable sources, wouldn't add up to enough notability to merit inclusion. The article asserts a number of public showings, which is good and speaks to WP:CREATIVE, but it specifically asserts three written, presumably independent sources. If those check out, that would meet the WP:GNG regardless of the specific artist critera. Speedy deletion is like summary judgement: admins are suppost to look at things in the best possible light, and spare the article unless even the most favorable interpretation points to deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Casting it as "summary judgment" is the perfect way to explain it. To me, anyway.

Thanks again.

—Bdb484 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ohconfucius's talk page archives

I'm curious about why you deleted this user's talk page archives dating from before January 1, 2008. I thought that U1 was not available for deleting talk pages. Deletion was especially unfortunate in this case because he is a party to an ongoing arbitration case involving his disruptive behavior. Now, the arbitrators are unable to see his talk pages from before January 1, 2008, and are even unable to see the edit history of those talk pages. Please consider reinstating those pages. Also, who requested the deletion of those talk pages? Ohconfucius's contribution history does not show a request (although I'm not sure if a request actually would show up there). Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, a U1 would not show up on his history, except in "deleted contributions", once it has been completed. I was not aware of the arbitration case; had I known, I might have declined his request. However, the talk page archives deleted were from between December 2006 and December 2007, and the request (reason given for each was "{{db-owner}} clearing out archives over a year old") seemed reasonable absent that context. I specifically give any other admin permission to reverse my deletions, if any of them believe that those talk page archives are relevant to any such ongoing action. That may seem like a cop-out, but I'm torn at how precisely to balance users' interests, and willing to defer to others more experienced in such cases. FWIW, unless he did page-move archiving, the contributions in question may still be in the contribution history of his talk page proper. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is no reason to be torn. I am prepared to consider any reasonable request by Admins to undelete these pages. However, I would point out that the Arbcom case which Tennis expert is referring to specifically relates to the date-delinking issue, which has only been going on since July/August 2008. Thus, the deleted content has absolutely no bearing on this case. I do practice page-move archiving. If I had wanted to cover my tracks, I would have had everything deleted, as I am entitled to do. FYI, the editor has edit-warred with me and has repeatedly taken me to ANI and AN3. Reinstating the contents would only serve to fuel the fanatical lengths with which the said editor is prepared to go to harass me regardless of whether my actions have any bearing on the case. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I would add that members of ARBCOM have full access to my deleted talk pages. Refusal to reinstate the deletion would merely deprive Tennis expert of the pleasure of presenting that 'evidence' to the relevant page, of which he is already a very substantial contributor in terms of kB. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

films depicting Guyana

I don't understand what is ‎Blatant advertising about film that is made in a small south american country? Please let me know because I worked very long and hard on articles for this website and I'm getting very discouraged. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraokland (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue with that page when I deleted it a week ago is that it was an article promoting a single film. It was since recreated by you and deleted by another admin. A WP:List article is generally a series of links to other articles. You later created Mustard Bath (film), and I declined to speedily delete that article, as it was appropriate for that title. Perhaps I should have moved the original article in lieu of deleting it, but it appears that your article now exists in the proper location. I don't see anything from the deleted article that's missing from the article that currently exists. Once there are several articles about films depicting Guyana, then it will be more appropriate to create a category or list that doesn't serve to just promote one single film. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)